@Precogvision
That is an accurate description of some of the reasons one reads reviews etc
You're pointing out the "extreme-thing" - both extremum. I'm not one of the hype trainers or the haters and most of the listeners of this heddphone or reviewing it by commenting it etc. aren't either.
Even if it is true this is happening a lot here (it is) and it should be avoided, it is a manipulative argumentation you and some here are pulling, with that kind of generalization,
dividing some of the listeners here into this extremum, hype trainer and hater section. Very much unjust.
"
Crying about it projects insecurity" that was unnecessary too
It is mainly probability when assessing by reading through others reviews (comments, descriptions, comparisons etc.).
When out of 10000 x comments the descriptions were mostly consistent, being it positive/negative about x characterstic, and someone writes smt. as I mentioned in #1,969, which isn't simply negative opinion, then I'm wary of it.
If you still see everything critic he wrote simply as negative opinion, well your choice, I exactly described what I see, unjust and wrong with it.
I mostly do not need assessing by reading comments, since I listened to some of the headphones myself. And I had didn't had months between listening session, so it isn't from memory either and no need trying to guess how something sounds.
Back to the "..
overall speed, the HEDDphone is not quite up there with the likes of Stax or even the HD800"
That is plainly wrong from a technical standpoint, as dynamic driver is the technology with slower response compared to planars, electrostats and now the atm transducer. The response matches the signal slower and less accurate with dynamic drivers.
Dynamic don't have a flat impedance, the coil isn't printed and spread all over diaphragm. Resisting the current and less control over the diaphragm's movement.
The inertia is higher with dynamic technology, more mass, less acceleration, more vibration, less fast and accurate transient response.
"
All of them feature piston-like diaphragms that move the air in a 1:1 ratio so that the diaphragm velocity equals the air velocity. Whether we talk about electrostatic and magnetostatic speakers, ribbons, voice coil based dome and cone speakers or even a Blatthaller design – they all follow this particular design approach." - quote from hedd audio.
The atm did overcome this and queezes the air out in a 4:1 ratio (air flow velocity to diaphragm velocity).
That's basiscally what everyone has heard and described when listening to the heddphone, resulting in how overall fast it plays, the very accurate transients, very fast attack and decay, very high transducer resolution and perceived detail, transparency.
It is not even biased or unjust negative - far from neutral - reviewing with this specific statement, it is just wrong.
Sometime you like both
That's why personally think it is good to compare different technologies, even different price brackets. But what I dislike it this unjust negative way crinacle did it.
What comes next: him saying electrostatic bass is bad, just because it does not have the same chracteristics as dynamic or planars? Not slamming as hard or as boomy (which is excessive, thus should be seen as negative. But logic ...).